Are the gcc build files still needed after section 5.4?
m at de-minimis.co.uk
m at de-minimis.co.uk
Mon Jun 5 17:27:51 PDT 2006
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> m at de-minimis.co.uk wrote these words on 06/05/06 04:00 CST:
>> On the other hand, I can't help feeling that whilst the lfs FAQ may be
>> great, that information belongs in the ln faq == ln man page. It's
>> certainly not clear from there, if mentioned at all.
> What man page are you looking at? Here's what I have:
> ln [OPTION]... [-T] TARGET LINK_NAME (1st form)
> In the 1st form, create a link to TARGET with the name LINK_NAME.
> What in that snippet from the man page is difficult to understand?
Oh, the man page is chock full of snippets that I DO understand, that's
not the problem. The problem is that the behaviour is:
ln original1 original2 original3 ... [working_dir_path][link_name]
where [link_name] may exist only if there is but one original, and where
whilst both [working_dir_path] and [link_name] are optional, at least one
must be present.
The search path for an "original" entry is [working_dir_path]:$PWD (in
that order) unless it comes with an absolute path.
That is my own description based on a sequence of experiments. This
behaviour _isn't_clear_ from the man, the version I have on the machine I
use most anyway, although from a quick scan of three of my machines shows
that they don't all have the same man page.
> cc -> gcc
> Why would you interpret that link to mean the current directory?
> Especially when the next sentence (2nd form) specifically mentions
> the current directory.
Would you be so kind as to post that sentence and demonstrate how it
indicates the search path for original files?
BSD Dec 30 1993, derived from POSIX.2, IEEE Std 1003.2-1992. (this is
the one I checked)
FSF Mar 2004, coreutils 5.2.1 (still no clear mention of the search path,
although the info pages on which the manual is based is rather better. I
might be converted to info pages yet.)
I've just looked up the Single Unix Specification, which is interesting.
Crystal clear and very concise on what it covers, but it doesn't
completely specify behaviour and the licence prohibits free distribution.
One copy for own use and that's it, unless one wants to buy. No wonder it
doesn't get used more widely.
Digging out standards can be more fun than waiting for Makefiles to spew
out errors. ;-)
More information about the lfs-support